It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: The Most Dangerous Domestic Terror Law You've Never Heard Of

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Under the AETA, if you and a friend go on the web to research a company whose practices you plan to protest, you may have just become a terrorist.



You may not have heard of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, because the very first prosecution under the 2006 law is currently underway in San Jose, California. In the case, USA v. Buddenberg



At first blush, this may not sound so bad. But a closer look exposes serious problems: the AETA can be read to reach so many different types of protests and people, and it is written in language so vague, it is impossible for someone to know whether their actions might be covered under the AETA, and thus great swaths of protected speech are in danger of being silenced by the law.



To understand the fundamental threat to free speech, the First Amendment and the right to protest that the AETA poses, it might help to unpack the words "Animal Enterprise," "Terrorism," and "Act."



Under the law, an animal enterprise includes any business that deals in animal research or uses or sells animal products. This could be read as anything from a lab conducting medical research on monkeys to a gas station that sells beef jerky.



When you create something so broad that it could potentially allow workers who Googled WalMart's board of directors, then picketed a store -- which sells milk -- to be charged with terrorism, you have left our democracy and constitutional rights far behind.


www.alternet.org...:_the_most_dangerous_domestic_terror_law_you've_never_heard_of/

First Case Under Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Heard in San Jose, CA


The challenge comes in defense of four animal rights activists who are accused of chanting, making leaflets and writing with chalk on the sidewalk in front of a senior bio-researcher's house, as well as using the internet to research the company whose actions they planned to protest. This case is the first to be prosecuted under the November 2008 law. Under the AETA, the activists are charged with acts of animal enterprise terrorism.


www.commondreams.org...



"The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights both protect the rights of citizens to voice unpleasant, unpopular sentiments, or even statements that cause businesses to lose money,"




This is a very weird Act. I in no way condone the abuse of animals this is about Freedom of Speech and how it can affect our Constitutional rights.

I understand there are whacko’s out there that do bodily injury and should be punished for their crimes. Writing with chalk on a sidewalk seems a little too much in my opinion. What’s next a Tea Party Act of terrorism,

I’m also concerned about their method of knowing what we search on our home computers and what surveillance they use. They could tie almost anything to an act of terrorism. What is next?


[edit on 20-7-2009 by wonderworld]




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
This bill was pased in 2006, what is the point now, of discussing it?
Second line.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
There IS a point to discussing this.

Our so-called elected public servants have created millions of pages of legislation over the last few decades.

I would venture to say, based on opinion alone, that most of those pages have never been read except for the political appointees, lobbyists, and politician's that penned them.

If we don't start publicly reviewing them, we may never know how far they've strayed off the Constitutional course, and perhaps not you or I but our children will be the ones who have to pay the price for "letting it slide by" the way the politicians do.

Without a dialogue at some level, these things become the tools of tyranny. I, for one, am disinclined to 'let it slide'. If you don't see a point, why bother posting?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by johnnyflip
 


Because this is the first prosecution of this law in California. It was sitting stagnant and idle all these years. They are reving things up a bit.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnnyflip
This bill was pased in 2006, what is the point now, of discussing it?


I would think that it would most assuredly be a valid topic of discussion especially now in light of the "blitzkrieg" style power grab which is underway in our nations capital and elsewhere in the country today.

The adoption of a "head in the sand attitude" is an absurd stance to any individuals truly searching for the "root(s) of" and "solution(s) to" any given problem/issue.

I don't believe that the mere passage of time invalidates the relevance of civilized discussion concerning ANY topic.

Five days ago when I learned that The FDA says viruses are safe for treating meat and have approved their use in food that many Americans eat I was quite shocked that this approval had occurred also in 2006. I had never heard of it, even though I have been a chef for 17 years and strive to be ever vigilant as to the ingredients of the products I serve.

I have come to realize that this process is most likely safe, but I would not ever presume to think that discussion of the topic was frivolous.




*edited for grammar



[edit on 20-7-2009 by Snisha]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Snisha
 


I wonder if "The FDA says viruses are safe for treating meat" is linked to the same Act from 2006?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


You know that might be worth looking into!

I will look into it and see if there is any correlation possibly in the co-sponsors of these bills.

Good eye for considering that possibility!



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Snisha
 


Thank you but it was your good comment about the FDA in 2006 that gave me the idea they may be linked. I'll check around, as well.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnnyflip
This bill was pased in 2006, what is the point now, of discussing it?
Second line.


The point is that sometimes bad laws are passed for whatever the reason may be at the time. That reason at that time doesn't mean that those who voted for those laws to pass were thinking about the well being of the people. How many laws have passed and later been voided?


[i]Originally posted by Maxmars
Our so-called elected public servants have created millions of pages of legislation over the last few decades.
I would venture to say, based on opinion alone, that most of those pages have never been read except for the political appointees, lobbyists, and politician's that penned them.


I would venture to say the same, and that's a big problem.
Why are they there to make new laws when they should be there to make sure things are going as laid out in the Constitution???



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I agree that these things can become the tools of tyranny. I'm not sure Congress reads half of this stuff before signing it.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Americantrucker
 


Yes, this is what makes it so concerning. They stick an unconstituional bill in an animal rights protester bill. Who knows wht elese is out there that we are unaware of.

They can pull it out of a hat when deemed appropriate. I'm sure these peaceful protesters didnt expect to be arrested and headed for the Supreme court over writing with chalk. My kids are guilty of that.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I cannot find any link to this particular issue and the FDA's use of bacteriophage tech. in food processing.

I will include a link to the text of this bill though.

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (bill text)



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Snisha
 


Thanks for the link. I guess I should have added it.

It reads (7) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT- Any person who conspires or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the substantive offense."

Is searching on your computer a conspiracy against someone? It was for the 4 that got arrested.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by Snisha

Is searching on your computer a conspiracy against someone? It was for the 4 that got arrested.


Ya know... I hope that it is not coming to that!

The reason that I research these topics is because that I find it interesting and I also feel a responsibility as an American to be knowledgeable about the world around me.

I think that you would agree that it is not as if we are accessing information from the web for ANY other reason than to be "informed citizens".

If this nation is morphing into a entity that persecutes/prosecutes the citizenry for the "offense" of being aware of the reality of the world around us then we could very well have a reason for concern!

I think that if we humans choose to become as informed as possible, about as many issues as possible, it only serves to strengthen ourselves, our nation, and humanity in general.

Together we STAND...

Divided we FALL...

I personally feel that the absolute purpose of my existence is to be a servant/conduit of the LIGHT!

We must be courageous and steadfast in our resolve.

We can be either a part of the problem...

Or a part of the the solution...


PEACE BE UNTO YOU ALL





*edited for grammar



[edit on 24-7-2009 by Snisha]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Snisha
 


Yes it's sad to say that the charges brought against these 4 people was, in fact due to locating the people they wanted to protest. They used the word conspire to worsen and eventually arrest them.

If it starts with one case in California we can probably expect more. I dont see this being overturned but I guess there is a chance.

This was not a violent protest so I wish them the best and hope the constitution will hold it's weight!



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join